Author Topic: Why only Neville's back was burnt:  (Read 14324 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Why only Neville's back was burnt:
« Reply #60 on: April 24, 2016, 03:36:PM »

I've had one frozen off, Maggie. It caused a burn. I've sent 5 clients to their doctors over the years because of scalp areas which have troubled me. I've been right 4 times and they have been cut out under general anaesthetic. I don't believe the the 5th person took my advice.
Really?  I didn't know they did that but it sounds a better option than the knife  :o

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Why only Neville's back was burnt:
« Reply #61 on: April 24, 2016, 03:50:PM »
Surely a pathologist would have been able to tell if they'd been recent procedures which were performed on Neville's back/neck,either by cauterization or" razor",depending what the growths were. ? Local anaesthetics are usually given, and results set to the lab.

Only Neville's case notes would solve that one.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33781
Re: Why only Neville's back was burnt:
« Reply #62 on: April 24, 2016, 03:58:PM »
Surely a pathologist would have been able to tell if they'd been recent procedures which were performed on Neville's back/neck,either by cauterization or" razor",depending what the growths were. ? Local anaesthetics are usually given, and results set to the lab.

Only Neville's case notes would solve that one.


I know that "locals" are used on sebaceous cysts which really only require draining -although my father had one removed with no anaesthetic but scalp legions have to be cut out and until they begin, they're not always certain of how wide or deep a cut will be required. There is also the point that scalps bleed profusely which could cause distress to the patient, raising blood pressure and causing more bleeding.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Why only Neville's back was burnt:
« Reply #63 on: April 24, 2016, 04:16:PM »
Surely a pathologist would have been able to tell if they'd been recent procedures which were performed on Neville's back/neck,either by cauterization or" razor",depending what the growths were. ? Local anaesthetics are usually given, and results set to the lab.

Only Neville's case notes would solve that one.
'Razor'!  Lookout....  ew!, ew!   :o  makes me feel ill.  :'( :'(  ;D
« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 04:17:PM by maggie »

Offline sherlock

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Why only Neville's back was burnt:
« Reply #64 on: April 24, 2016, 05:09:PM »

Unless he was working as Jeremy's accomplice, what would have been AP's motive for wiping out the entire family?

Because Jeremy was convicted Anthony inherited half the money ...

As he would have done if Jeremy had been killed that night ...

So his motive would have been money ...

It is possible he acted as Jeremy's accomplice ...

It is also possible he acted alone and wanted Jeremy dead or convicted ...

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33781
Re: Why only Neville's back was burnt:
« Reply #65 on: April 24, 2016, 05:33:PM »
Because Jeremy was convicted Anthony inherited half the money ...

As he would have done if Jeremy had been killed that night ...

So his motive would have been money ...

It is possible he acted as Jeremy's accomplice ...

It is also possible he acted alone and wanted Jeremy dead or convicted ...


I was aware that after court proceedings(?) AP got something. Are you saying he got half of the approximate £450,000?

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Why only Neville's back was burnt:
« Reply #66 on: April 24, 2016, 06:08:PM »
Because Jeremy was convicted Anthony inherited half the money ...

As he would have done if Jeremy had been killed that night ...

So his motive would have been money ...

It is possible he acted as Jeremy's accomplice ...

It is also possible he acted alone and wanted Jeremy dead or convicted ...
I have always had anirrational feeling that AP was involved someway but although there is a slight possibility he could have been there is little or nothing concrete pointing in his direction  :-\

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: Why only Neville's back was burnt:
« Reply #67 on: April 24, 2016, 06:16:PM »
The legal position was unclear and to avoid years of legal entanglement it was agreed that Pamela would inherit all of June's estate and Anthony and Jackie the same with Nevill's, so Anthony essentially inherited a quarter of the whole legacy.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33781
Re: Why only Neville's back was burnt:
« Reply #68 on: April 24, 2016, 06:23:PM »
The legal position was unclear and to avoid years of legal entanglement it was agreed that Pamela would inherit all of June's estate and Anthony and Jackie the same with Nevill's, so Anthony essentially inherited a quarter of the whole legacy.


Thank-you, Steve.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Why only Neville's back was burnt:
« Reply #69 on: April 24, 2016, 06:34:PM »
Even AP came near to being fleeced. Didn't he go to court for what he was owed ? I wonder how that happened ?

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13785
Re: Why only Neville's back was burnt:
« Reply #70 on: April 24, 2016, 06:39:PM »
I have always had anirrational feeling that AP was involved someway but although there is a slight possibility he could have been there is little or nothing concrete pointing in his direction  :-\

AP has always been a bit of mystery.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33781
Re: Why only Neville's back was burnt:
« Reply #71 on: April 24, 2016, 06:41:PM »
Even AP came near to being fleeced. Didn't he go to court for what he was owed ? I wonder how that happened ?


Wasn't he the one with the alleged drugs problem and didn't the poor boy go on to blow what money he had on a bar in Ibiza?

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: Why only Neville's back was burnt:
« Reply #72 on: April 24, 2016, 06:48:PM »

Wasn't he the one with the alleged drugs problem and didn't the poor boy go on to blow what money he had on a bar in Ibiza?
No that was cousin Roland, though Anthony did end up in Ibiza courtesy of Jeremy.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Why only Neville's back was burnt:
« Reply #73 on: April 24, 2016, 06:57:PM »

Wasn't he the one with the alleged drugs problem and didn't the poor boy go on to blow what money he had on a bar in Ibiza?





I thought he was doing well in Ibiza,with his own property and bar/restaurant,so it didn't all go on drugs. He even invited a couple of EP officers there when they questioned him ( all very amicable,of course ) I wouldn't have called him poor either.
How many more of them had drug problems ?  ::)

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13785
Re: Why only Neville's back was burnt:
« Reply #74 on: April 24, 2016, 07:01:PM »
The legal position was unclear and to avoid years of legal entanglement it was agreed that Pamela would inherit all of June's estate and Anthony and Jackie the same with Nevill's, so Anthony essentially inherited a quarter of the whole legacy.

Why didn't Colin Inherit anything? For argument sake if he argued that Jeremy could have killed the Twins last would that not make him the sole beneficiary if true?